I also do like fresh ingredients on our food especially the vegetables. In the part that you said about egg noodles, well, I don't know how to make a fresh one but there is a readily available instant noodles on the market which costs, I think, less than a cent.
Sorry, we're off topic maybe, but still this is close to my heart, I love food. What kind of vegetables, and how do you prepare them? Do you have some in your garden?
I don't know GekiDan's situation, but in Manila there aren't so many private gardens. Food is grown outside the metro area, but the primary source of fresh vegetables is the mountain region of Luzon also known as the Cordillera.
Even locals of that area don't grow their so often, though they love growing flowers and ornamental plants. But a trip to the local market will have your shopping bag full of everything from lettuce to potatoes.
Even locals of that area don't grow their so often, though they love growing flowers and ornamental plants. But a trip to the local market will have your shopping bag full of everything from lettuce to potatoes.
Sorry if I'm going off-topic but I'll answer your questions.Sorry, we're off topic maybe, but still this is close to my heart, I love food. What kind of vegetables, and how do you prepare them? Do you have some in your garden?
Well... We have lots of vegetables that we used to cook, like leafy vegetables. But we don't have it in our garden. We always but it on a market near us. The owner said that they raised those in her own garden.
Thanks for the info GekiDan.
Back to the topic: I found the following interesting article on Some Airlines make Obese Passengers Buy Two Seats . Here's a look at some of the airlines' policies in the United States:
Thanks for the info GekiDan.
Back to the topic: I found the following interesting article on Some Airlines make Obese Passengers Buy Two Seats . Here's a look at some of the airlines' policies in the United States:
Hmm, interesting. Thanks for the info deanhills. I didn't realize airlines had these policies all set out. I guess I didn't really think about it until the ruling here in Canada. As far as the most "fair" goes (for other passengers and the company), I think Air France has a good policy. Then again, who's to say what's fair.
Yes. Air France do have a good policy on people with "high body mass" or obese to be exact. A discount is better than buying an additional seat for the same price. I also think if there are high chances that obese people would like to fly anywhere, why don't they make a seat especially for the obese?
Thanks for the info GekiDan.
Back to the topic: I found the following interesting article on Some Airlines make Obese Passengers Buy Two Seats . Here's a look at some of the airlines' policies in the United States:
I thought the 250 pounds was interesting, since there are non-obese people that weigh more than that. I know a few. They are tall, and have totally different problems as they fly with their knees tucked up to their chin, unable to even lower the tray table.
The real problem with the Southwest policy was that they were making people pay for an extra seat but not actually giving them the seat they paid for. They were literally charging a premium for being large, without providing any service for it. I guess it was a sort of fat tax.
Think it would be more feasible to have tax incentives for people to be fit and healthy, for example to not have to pay tax on subscription fees to accredited gymnasiums or related exercise places. And I think the fat tax should be levied on those manufacturers of foods that make food items that are high in saturated fats and sugars and are addictive, like cereals with lots of sugar in them, cookies, crisps, fast foods, pizza, burgers, pop etc etc.Fat tax is coming. They have already hit the smokers and drinkers. Why not fat tax. Maybe even "ugly" tax. That would bring in more money to be wasted.
Also they should tax unnecessary goods like liquors or cigarettes. These goods are definitely not good for the body. Liquors for instance can make one very fat like what others are saying, beer belly.Think it would be more feasible to have tax incentives for people to be fit and healthy, for example to not have to pay tax on subscription fees to accredited gymnasiums or related exercise places. And I think the fat tax should be levied on those manufacturers of foods that make food items that are high in saturated fats and sugars and are addictive, like cereals with lots of sugar in them, cookies, crisps, fast foods, pizza, burgers, pop etc etc.
Think it would be more feasible to have tax incentives for people to be fit and healthy, for example to not have to pay tax on subscription fees to accredited gymnasiums or related exercise places. And I think the fat tax should be levied on those manufacturers of foods that make food items that are high in saturated fats and sugars and are addictive, like cereals with lots of sugar in them, cookies, crisps, fast foods, pizza, burgers, pop etc etc.
I can't tell if you're serious or not, but I hate when people don't take responsibilities for their own action and place blame on the types of foods available. Like those girls in the states who tried suing mcdonalds because it made them fat... they likely would have won if they could have proved that it was ONLY mcdonalds they ate... it's ridiculous.
There should be tax incentives for anyone trying to become fit - for gyms etc. The problem is, so many people join (mostly in the month of january) and then by february, they have given up going.
I'm serious. Perhaps you are an ultra self-disciplined person as far as consuming carbohydrates is concerned. But some carbohydrates can be very addictive. Believe it or not. Like drugs, people just can't help themselves, it is really a problem. Take kids for example. And of course those food companies add a further dilemma of marketing and advertising in the whole mix making it even more problematic.
Wherever you go you are surrounded by chocolates, crisps, easy fast foods, so imagine if you were addicted, how difficult that has to be. I kid you not, it is really and truly a problem for obese people. And obese people are a burden on the health care system in various forms including obesity. Diabetes is also a consequence of high carb consumption and drinking plenty of sugar-laden pop. The ones with artificial sugar are also not good for health. So I see a logic in levying a tax on those companies which are marketing foods that create health problems. An added bonus with imposition of taxes would be that those fastfood companies will try to figure out more healthy ways for fast food. MacDonalds I know is doing quite a lot in that direction, but not enough.
This is a link to a Website about Carbohydrate Addiction:
http://www.clearhavencenter.com/addictions-research/food-addiction/carbohydrate-addiction/
Well of course food can be addictive. I'm not extremely self-disciplined at all, but that's probably because I don't have to be - I have a fairly decent metabolism and I'm also very active.
Anyway, one could argue that everything can be addictive. Video games, tv, gambling, etc. I would also argue that TV, video games, and the internet also contribute largely to the issue of obesity since I'm guessing in most cases it's not ONLY the food causing the problem.
Since inactivity is a large part in becoming overweight, should we then tax any form of addictive entertainment that leads to a lack of physical activity?
The key difference is that food isn't chemically addictive. People can be psychologically addicted to it (comfort food, boredom, etc.) but they don't go into withdrawal without their favorite snack.
They actually have supposedly considered doing an obesity tax. I don't think that it would stand up for long though.
They actually have supposedly considered doing an obesity tax. I don't think that it would stand up for long though.
Heck it might make some people very happy. More money for the government to burn and a way to "punish" fat people. Some would see that as a win win thing.
I think chocolate is addictive, sort of like coffee. It's not a strong addiction, but it's there.
If they do a weight tax, then they need to do a smoking tax, and a failure-to-exercise tax and a failing-to-get-medical-checkups tax and a not-eating-enough-fruits tax and a forgetting-to-floss tax.
If they do a weight tax, then they need to do a smoking tax, and a failure-to-exercise tax and a failing-to-get-medical-checkups tax and a not-eating-enough-fruits tax and a forgetting-to-floss tax.
There is already a "smoking tax" here and a drinking tax. They hit booze with a 6% jump in state tax last month. I am just waiting for a sex tax to come along. But first they need to tax us for breathing.
Chocolate contains caffeine so it is likely that there is a dependent addiction there. As for smoking tax, that's already here in Canada. I dunno how much it costs you guys for a pack of cigarettes, but here it's went from like $4 to $10 in the last 6 years or something. A drinking tax too. I don't disagree with it in the least... billions of dollars are spent on healthcare due to diseases caused by smoking and drinking - since healthcare is free in Canada, that money has to come from somewhere. I say they start charging $30 a pack or more for such a filthy pointless habit.
They also fit the model for taxes well. They are a luxury item that has a high volume of sales and an inelastic demand. Most smokers and drinkers just suck it up and pay the extra price. That's exactly what you want in a tax. The "sin tax" idea is just a little bonus that they get to tack onto the plan and make for good rhetoric.
Similar threads
